User talk:Lfsq22/Gender in security studies/Naomil07 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Lfsq22


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lfsq22/Gender_in_security_studies?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Gender in security studies

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead:

I found your lead to be strong and concise. You did a great job of building off of the initial, rather brief, lead in the original article. I thought your leading paragraph was a great introduction to the topic and gave the reader an idea of what to expect without overloading them with information. I particularly liked the last two sentences where you discuss power dynamics and masculine qualities because they helped me to understand why gender was important in security studies.

Content:

I thought that the content you offered was very strong! You do a great job of providing relevant information from a variety of sources. I also liked that you touched on a few different subtopics within in the larger subject. One suggestion I would offer is to briefly introduce the names of the authors you mention such as and Daniel Stevens because it was unclear to me who they were and what their relationship to the topic is. This can be as simple as calling them a feminist scholar before their name or an author or something of this sort. I also think it would be useful to say that you're discussing a study they conducted so we know what type of source the info is coming from.

Tone and Balance:

I thought you did a great job of keeping your tone neutral and factual. The content didn't sound opinionated or skewed towards any particular "side."

Sources and References:

The sources you included were all reputable and recent. All the links worked and were reflective of the content you included in your article.

Organization:

I thought that the organization of this piece was strong. You do a good job of integrating in the Wikipedia style of writing and linking/bolding things when appropriate. I also liked your inclusion of a quote to break up the text. I noticed a few grammatical errors, such as in the sentence that begins, "For example, women peacekeepers..." I would include the word "of" or another word between "because" and "ideas." There was also a point when you said the word "aims" and it should be "aim." I would just recommend reading over everything again for minor details like that. I would also maybe include a sentence before you go into the quote on the sidelining section so we don't jump right in. I also thought you organized the content into sections really well, but there were points when I thought you could elaborate even more on the information you included! Images and Media:

Images and Media:

I know that, in my experience at least, the image options were limited, so there's definitely some flexibility here, but I was wondering if the particular conference that you show a photo of is important to any of the topics you mentioned? I liked the image and thought that it felt relevant to security studies for sure, but I was wondering if it had relevance to gender in security studies specifically. If so, maybe reference it briefly in the text or add that to your caption!

Overall, I thought you did a great job! I found the content you included to be really interesting and well articulated. You did a great job of offering new information and integrating it well into the Wikipedia style. Overall, I thought you did a great job! I found the content you included to be really interesting and well articulated. You did a great job of offering new information and integrating it well into the Wikipedia style. Naomil07 (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)